Israel finds more sympathy in Europe

Israel finds more sympathy in Europe
By Robert Marquand
The Christian Science Monitor
January 8, 2009

Concerns about Islamist threat have influenced traditionally pro-Arab
Europe’s view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Paris – European Union leaders this week flanked Israeli Foreign
Minister Tzipi Livni as she told the world’s news media, “We are all
opposed to terrorism.” For many observers in Europe, the moment
underscored a little-noted but ongoing convergence between European
and US-Israeli thinking – despite the tragedy and challenge that Gaza
presents.

For decades, Europe was a Middle East counterbalance – generally
sympathetic to Palestinians as the weaker party, critical of an
unqualified US backing of Israel. The Palestine Liberation
Organization had offices in Europe. France’s Navy helped Yasser
Arafat escape Tripoli in 1983. Europe backed the Oslo Accords, and
saw the Palestinian cause as a fight for territory and statehood.

Yet Europe’s traditional position on the Arab dispute has been
quietly changing: It is gravitating closer to a US-Israeli framing of
a war on terror, a “clash of civilizations,” with a subtext of
concern about the rise of Islam – and away from an emphasis on core
grievances of Palestinians, like the ongoing Israeli settlements in
the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and “occupation.”

Causes for the shift are complex and manifold, and in no small way
associated with the rise of Muslim populations in Europe. But since
Sept. 11, the discourse and psychology in Europe has shifted, with
pro-Arab support “diluting and weakening,” as Karim Bitar, with the
International Institute of Strategic Relations in Paris, puts it -
and converging with US-Israeli framing of a fight against terror.
[Editor's note: The original version misspelled Mr. Bitar's name.]

“There is convergence on goals [terrorism] between Europe and the US,
and a remnant of divergence on means [military logic],” argues the
French intellectual Dominique Moisi. “The Europeans are less pro-
Islamic Muslims now than before, after 9/11.

“We also see that even American Jews are not entirely at peace with
what Israel is doing. There’s more criticism of Israel than before,
in American opinion; and in Europe there is less support of what the
Arabs are.”

In the Gaza conflict, “European diplomats see a crisis with no exit
point,” says a senior French scholar with extensive Mideast
experience. “They think if the Israelis can put out Hamas and put in
Abbas, that would be wonderful. They don’t see Hamas as Palestinian
nationals, but as Islamic.”

A Euro-American convergence leaves European Union diplomats
supporting Palestinians on “shallower emotional and humanitarian
grounds,” says Mr. Bitar, “helping people survive, hoping economic
improvement is enough, and forgetting the old issues of substance,
and Israeli occupation. The two-state solution is nearly dead.”

Europe itself is not the Europe of decades past, dominated by French
diplomacy, with its Arab ties. There are 27 nations. Eastern and
former Soviet states, like Poland and the Czech Republic, often take
American positions on foreign affairs. As Prague took over the EU
presidency last week, it issued a statement that Israel’s actions in
Gaza were “defensive” – later backing down under French and British
censure.

In Scandinavia, traditionally pro-Arab states have found social
tensions with new Muslim populations – the crisis in Denmark over a
cartoon of the prophet Muhammad, for example – and public support for
Arabs is down in polls. In Europe today, nearly all major leaders -
France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, Germany’s Angela Merkel, Britain’s Gordon
Brown, and Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi – are seen as leaning toward
Israel. The lone pro-Arab leader is Spain’s José Luis Rodríguez
Zapatero.

“There is a general ‘Arab fatigue’ in Europe,” says Denis Bauchard,
an adviser to the French Institute for International Relations in
Paris. “The Palestine issue continues, the violence continues, the
Palestinians are divided, and it just creates a kind of fatigue.”

“Europe fears an Islamist threat, whether internal or external, and
this has begun to change the overall views on the Israel-Palestine
conflict,” says Aude Signoles, an expert on Palestinian movements at
the University of La Réunion in Madagascar.

A Pew Global Attitudes poll in 2006 found that French sympathies were
evenly divided (38 percent) between those sympathizing with the
Palestinians and with Israel, marking a doubling of support for
Israel and a 10 percent gain for Palestinians over the previous two
years. In Germany, 37 percent sympathized with Israel – an increase
of 13 points over 2004 and more than double those who supported the
Palestinians.

To be sure, Europe retains deep reservoirs of solidarity with North
Africa. Public opinion here is outraged by the Gaza inferno. There is
widespread condemnation of the Israeli attack, including by French
President Sarkozy. European media have been overwhelmingly
sympathetic to the Gazans, even while being barred from entering the
Strip.

More fundamentally, says Antoine Sfeir, founder of the Middle East
review “Cahiers de L’Orient,” European leaders understand the
political realities in Israel, the problems of a state attacked by
rockets, and the need to protect citizens. Even if he disagrees with
the framing of the issue, “The Europeans don’t see this as a
Palestinian thing. They see it as a Hamas thing,” he says. “In fact,
this is not about terrorism; it is a war between Israel and
Palestinians that is being called a war on terror.”

Ironically perhaps, Europeans were the most vocal critics of the Bush
administration-coined phrase “war on terror.” It is seen as
overreaching and simplistic while being used to sanction wars like
Iraq.

Yet since Sept. 11, a discourse that advocates a tough confrontation
with Islam has emerged in Europe – based in part on Samuel
Huntington’s “clash of civilization” theory – in such venues as the
French magazine “Brave New World.” Sarkozy has been congenial to
these points.

Authors include former leftists like Pascal Bruckner, André
Glucksmann, Olivier Rolin, and Bernard-Henri Lévy who supported the
war in Iraq and view Islam as a creeping form of totalitarian
ideology moving into Europe. The most recent issue contains an homage
to Mr. Huntington, who died last month.

Bitar argues that “Islamophobia” feeds a popular confusion in Europe
about Muslims. “Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda are all viewed as the same
thing. Europe used to see the Arab conflict as about territory. Now
it is shifting towards the global war on terror, Islam versus the
West, clash theory.”

Mr. Moisi dissents from the Huntington thesis. His recent book “Clash
of Emotion,” describes a West characterized by “fear” and an Arab
world characterized by “humiliation.”

US and European differences on Israel have been deep and numerous.
The US and Israel have religious and theological sensibilities about
the Holy Land; Europeans view the Palestinian issue through a secular
and humanitarian lens.

America, with an influential Jewish population, has seen Israel’s
security and right to defend itself as central. Europe, without as
weighty a lobby, has stressed UN security resolutions, and
international law for Palestinians that have been a counterbalance.
European academics have not been uneasy with the phrase “state-
sponsored terrorism” to describe Israeli violence against
Palestinians; in America the phrase is seen as far-left.

Europeans saw President Clinton as an honest broker in the Mideast;
President Bush has been seen as wholly aligned with Israel.

Large differences still exist between the two continents on the
priority of the Palestinian-Israeli issue.

“In Europe, we see the Palestinian issue as major, one that, if not
solved, will continue the chaos and violence,” says Mr.
Bauchard. “Americans agree with Israel that the real issue is the
existential threat from Iran. The Israelis built a wall and treated
the Palestinians as unimportant.”

European media characterize the photogenic and well-spoken Ms. Livni
as a moderate – though she emerged from the hard-line party of Ariel
Sharon. “The Europeans really fear what will happen if [right-wing
Likud Party chairman Benjamin] Netanyahu wins in February,” says Ms.
Signoles. “So she is called a moderate, because in Europe, the term
right-wing means violent.”

Signoles points out that the main effect of a Europe that adopts an
American position is that the core Palestinian issues regarding the
cessation of settlements, a shared capital of Jerusalem, and the
right of return “may not be emphasized as before.. [T]he Israel-
Palestine issue is an asymmetric problem, and if the international
community does not raise it and balance it, there is little chance
that the rights of the smaller player will be raised.”

Many reasons why Arab nations do not absorb the Palestinians and solve the Palestine problem

Israel’s problems are due to its enlightened founders
By Kevin Myers, January 07 2009

The death toll from Gaza is of course, shocking, dreadful, unspeakable;
though it does not compare with the death toll amongst Israelis if Hamas
had its way. Recurring in the current debate are allegations about the
terrible deeds Israelis did in 1948. But that is history. That some of
these wrongs done to Arabs might have been prompted by local Arab
support for the invading Arab armies is irrelevant. Historical
injustices were certainly done in the formation of the Israeli state.

However, far greater wrongs were inflicted in 1945 on the Poles of
Eastern Poland, and on the Germans of East Prussia, the Baltic and of
the Sudetenland. We can go back a further quarter of a century, and look
at the fate of the Christians of Anatolia, and the Turks of Crete and
Thessalonika, or even, at a far lesser level, of the Catholics of West
and North Belfast and the Protestants of Cork, who in different degrees
were dispossessed, murdered, and exiled.

What was the difference between all those expulsions, and the
expulsion — let us settle for the word — of some Arabs from what was
to become Israel? It is that the exiles found homes in the states to
which they had fled, and there they were allowed to work, and become
full and active citizens. Turkey absorbed the Greek Turks, Greece
absorbed Anatolia’s Orthodox Christians, impoverished post-war Germany
absorbed the millions of Balts, Sudetens and Prussians, the Free State
absorbed the Northerners, (even appointing one of them, Dan McKenna, the
head of the Army).

But not Israel’s neighbours. No, they herded their fellow Arabs (not
then known as Palestinians) from the former Ottoman province of
Palestine into displaced persons camps, and kept them there. Not for
months, but for decades, causing all kinds of political, cultural and
moral claustrophobia. It was in these camps that the modern notion of
“Palestinian” was born. And though we hear a lot about the walls between
Israel and Gaza and Israel and the West Bank, we don’t hear much about
the walls between those densely populated Arab territories, and the
neighbouring countries of Jordan and Egypt. Arab brotherhood becomes
mysteriously indistinct whenever it requires solid gestures, rather than
words.

The Israelis were told by the UN to leave Gaza. They left Gaza. Their
reward has been to have had thousands of missiles fired into half a
dozen of their cities from the territory they abandoned. And how many
demonstrations have the grisly cast of showbiz anti-Israelis mounted to
protest at these deliberate acts of indiscriminate terrorism? Let me ask
you another question, with a comparable answer: How many Jews are there
in Hamas?

Dear old Hamas, whose foot-soldiers are fed and supplied by EU and UN
humanitarian aid, and armed from across the border with Egypt (which,
naturally, is otherwise sealed to prevent Palestinians from leaving
Gaza). It is admirably honest on one issue: it is dedicated to the
destruction of Israel, and to the extermination of the Jewish infidels
in Palestine. So, the bombardment of Israel by Hamas terrorists is not a
temporary nuisance, but the first step of a genocidal strategy.

And whereas the overwhelming majority of Israelis would regret the
terrible slaughter of, say, the five Balousha sisters by an Israeli
bomb, Hamas would rejoice in a comparable massacre of five Jewish girls.
Moreover, I suspect I will win few friends by pointing out that the
Balousha family had initially left their home, right next to a
Hamas-controlled mosque, after the Israelis announced (as they often do,
to minimise civilian casualties) that all such mosques would be targets
for their bombers. But the girls’ father, Ibrahim, then decided to take
his chances back at home, where the sisters were killed by falling
rubble when the mosque was bombed, just as the Israelis said it would
be.

Such pathological and tragic fatalism in the face of an almost certain
outcome defies all rational analysis. However, it does make stunning
propaganda for the global anti-Israeli lobby. Moreover, all the
arguments about the “proportionality” of the Israeli response are
meaningless. Hamas can do what it likes, without serious rebuke or
protests from the western intelligentsia and assorted celebrities: it is
only when the Israelis reply to the insufferable provocation of
Hamas-missile attacks that we suddenly hear the endless recitation of
the P-word.

But ‘proportionality’ is a meaningless and largely theological concept:
what is a proportionate reply to 8,000 missiles being fired into the
defenceless civilian populations of so many Israeli cities?

Israel’s current problems exist because its founders largely behaved
like enlightened Jews, rather than as Communists and Nazis, or even as
earlier generations of Americans or Australians had done. The Israelis
didn’t expel all the defeated peoples from their lands, but instead, let
many stay. In other words, they didn’t seek the kind of outcome which
the Romans inflicted upon Carthage at the end of the Third Punic War.
And that’s the real point about that much-maligned thing, a Carthaginian
Peace. For one tended not to hear very much from the Carthaginian
Liberation Organisation thereafter.
kmyers@independent.ie

Torture in the Arab world versus resort living in Guantanamo

WHAT THE ARAB WORLD THINKS OF TORTURE
Written by Brigitte Gabriel
Thursday, 26 January 2006

Torture is accepted and even expected in the Arab world. Might makes right. Arab men – not those nice Arab men you may know who have immigrated to America, but Arab men living in the Arab world – prove their manhood by the way they treat their enemy.

After all, it’s what Mohammed did to the nonbelievers – Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians in the Koran – the ‘holy book’ allegedly mishandled in Guantanamo prison. Arab Moslem men gain honor by shaming, belittling, abusing and torturing their enemy in the most horrific ways.

Just look at how the Palestinians treat so-called collaborators by disemboweling them and hanging them upside down in Manger Square in Bethlehem. Look at the terrorist torture chambers that the coalition forces recently uncovered in Iraq.

When people refer to the prisons of Saddam Hussein and his regime they think he is the extreme exception. Not! The truth is his torture tactics are quite the norm in the Arab world.

If you want to see torture that is beyond what any Westerner can ever imagine, you can view this video of impalement. But I must warn you: this is so graphic you may throw up: the public rectal impalement of a man. This is what Arabs do to their own people.  (note: the video is not longer available in the website)

As someone who came from the Arab world and knows how they think, it frustrates me to see self-appointed self-righteous politicians and media pundits, oblivious to Arabic culture and thinking, criticizing America’s actions at Guantanamo.

The prisoners at ‘Gitmo’ are a bunch of Al Qaeda Jihadis who were captured while bent on killing us – the kaffirs or ‘unbelievers.’ They laugh watching our government bend over backwards, forwards and sideways trying to appease the critics.

The more we stumble over ourselves questioning our goals and tactics, the more the Jihadis think we are weak and easy to defeat. They smirk because they believe that Americans have demonstrated how stupid and weak they are by caving in to stories about maltreatment of Guantanamo detainees.

Actually Gitmo is a joke as far as the Arabs are concerned. Prison? You call that a prison? You know what prisoners call Guantanamo among themselves? Al muntazah al-dini lilmujaheden al Moslemin, The Religious Resort for Islamic Militants.

They are given three halal (Moslem kosher) meals a day in accordance to their religious dictates. How many Jewish kosher prisons are there for Jews in the Arabic world? None. Jews captured in the Arab world are butchered like those obscene pictures taken in Ramallah during the frenzied slaughter of two Israeli reservists who got lost.

Most of these Guantanamo detainees never had three meals a day in their entire life. They are gaining weight, and are living in what they refer to in Arabic as Al-Jannah, paradise. They have radio, television, soccer games, air-conditioning, clean clothes, servants, meaning American GIs, who wait on them hand and foot.

They have Islamic chaplains and handed Korans, the Hate Guide Against Infidels, by people so concerned as not to offend that they wear latex gloves and carry the book with two hands.

Rest here

Stealth jihad: Indo-Jihadi Arab Forum launched in Delhi

This is a conduit to strengthen Islam and Wahhabi extremism in India Apparently well supported by the Indian government and businesses. Should we then complain when attacked by Jihadis when we allow them to set up these bases.

Read Saudi Arab kindness to Hindus: Saudi Arabia: Makeshift Hindu temple razed, three worshippers deported
Indo-Arab Forum launched in Delhi
Nilofar Suhrawardy | Arab News, Wednesday 3 December 2008 (05 Dhul Hijjah 1429)

NEW DELHI: India yesterday reiterated its strong concern over Israel’s months-long blockade of Gaza Strip, saying there could be “no justification for the denial of essential supplies, including food and fuel, to the civilian population” in the territory.

“We remain concerned with the isolation of Gaza and the recent upsurge of violence there. We also remain concerned at the adverse effects of the closure of access points into the strip on the prevailing humanitarian situation,” External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said at the inauguration of the Indo-Arab Cooperation Forum, a cultural event being held to celebrate the relations between India and the Arab world.

The Forum was launched here yesterday with its theme as “Partnership Through Culture.” Mukherjee and Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa, who was here as chief guest, inked the accord on setting up the Forum in the presence of envoys from Arab countries.

“We are taking an important step in our relations with the launch of the India-Arab Cooperation Forum. We believe that this Forum will emerge as a mechanism to strengthen and diversify our relations in various fields including, culture, trade, energy and human resources,” Mukherjee said.

Mukherjee and Moussa also inaugurated a weeklong cultural festival, which is marked by the presence of around 190 artistes from Arab nations, who are here to exhibit their paintings, handicrafts, music, dance and other cultural activities.

Reiterating India’s continuous support for the Palestinian cause, Mukherjee said: “We are concerned about lack of progress in the peace process. India has constantly supported the quest of the Palestinian people for a homeland in line with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 calling for a negotiated solution resulting in a sovereign, independent, viable and united state of Palestine living within secure and recognized borders, side by side at peace with Israel.”

Describing the Arab peace initiative, India “wholeheartedly supported” as a significant move, Mukherjee said, “Annapolis process needs to be taken forward.”

“There does not seem to have been much progress. We, however, remain convinced of the need for continued dialogue,” he said. “India and the Arab League should increase cooperation, as they have similar aspirations,” Moussa said.

Later at another function, Moussa said: “Indo-Arab relations have entered a new phase today as the Forum has opened several avenues of cooperation.” Dismissing the hype raised about clash of civilizations, Moussa said: “I believe that this does not exist.”

The function was organized by Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA) in cooperation with Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI). “The world today does not need a clash of civilizations but a harmony of civilizations,” ICWA acting director general Ashok Kumar said.

During his address, Minister of State for External Affairs E. Ahamed said: “A pluralistic society such as ours which stands for idea of composite culture and unity in diversity can never accept the concept of clash of civilizations.”

Islamic terror in Mumbai: What can India learn from Israel? – must read

The Region: India and Israel: The parallels
Nov 30, 2008 20:27 | Updated Dec 2, 2008
By BARRY RUBIN

For years, India has been subjected to periodic terrorist attacks throughout the country. But what happened in Mumbai is something new and different: a full-scale terrorist war.

This is the kind of threat and problem Israel has been facing for decades. What are the lessons for India from Israel’s experience?

First, India needs and has the right to expect international sympathy and help. It will get sympathy but will it get help? Once it is clear that other countries must actually do something, incur some costs, possibly take some risks, everything changes.

If the terrorists came from bases or training camps in Pakistan, India would want international action to be taken. Pakistan must be pressured to close such camps, stop helping terrorists and provide information possessed by Pakistani intelligence agencies.

But will Western countries make a real effort? Are they going to impose sanctions on Pakistan or even denounce it? Will they make public the results of their own investigations about responsibility for the terror campaign against India?

NOT LIKELY. After all, such acts would cost them money and involve potential risks, perhaps even of the terrorists targeting them. Moreover, they need Pakistan, especially to cooperate on keeping down other Islamist terrorist threats, not spread around nuclear weapons technology too much and cooperate on maintaining some stability in Afghanistan.

This parallels Israel’s situation with Syria, Lebanon and Iran. For decades, the US and some European countries have talked to the Syrian government about closing down terrorist headquarters in Damascus. The Syrians merely say no (though sometimes they have just lied and said the offices were closed). The US even did impose some sanctions. But by being intransigent, pretending moderation and hinting help on other issues, Syria has gotten out of its isolation.

So, despite all the pious talk about fighting terrorism, in real terms, India – like Israel – is largely on its own in defending itself from terrorism.

ANOTHER PROBLEM India faces, like Israel in the case of Lebanon, is that it is dealing with a country that lacks an effective government. Pakistan is in real terms a state of anarchy. Even within the intelligence apparatus, factions simply do as they please in inciting terrorism. Given popular opinion and Pakistan’s Islamic framework, even a well-intentioned government would be hard put to crack down.

In Israel’s case, the whole rationale for regimes such as those in Iran and Syria is radical ideology. So pervasive is the daily supply of lies and incitement to hatred that popular opinion supports the most murderous terrorism. Murder of Israeli civilians brings celebrations in the Arab world. Appeals to law and order, holding governments responsible for their actions, shaming them or going over their heads to turn to the masses on humanitarian grounds simply don’t work.

So what’s a country to do? It might consider cross-border raids against terrorist camps or retaliation to pressure the terrorist sponsor to desist. Sometimes it will actually take such action. But can India depend on international support for such self-defense measures or will it then be labeled an aggressor? How much is India willing to risk war with Pakistan even though it has a legitimate casus belli due to covert aggression against it by that neighbor country? And let’s not forget that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, a situation which Israel may soon face in regard to Iran.

Now we can see the logic of terrorism as a strategy by radical groups and countries pursuing aggression by covert means. Their victims are not only put on the defensive but have to make tough decisions about self-defense.

FINALLY, THERE is the dangerous “root cause” argument. Many Western intellectuals and journalists – as well as some governments – are ready to blame the victim of terrorism. In Israel’s case, despite desperate efforts to promote peace – concessions, territorial withdrawals and the offer of a Palestinian state – it is said to be the villain for not giving the Palestinians enough.

The terrorists and their sponsors use this situation to their advantage. By being intransigent – demanding so much and offering so little – they keep the conflict going and are able to pose as victims simultaneously.

Will some suggest that if India merely gives up Kashmir and makes various concessions, the problem will go away? This might not happen but it is worth keeping an eye on such a trend.

The Indian government is thus going to have some very tough decisions to make. How will it mobilize real international strategic support and not just expressions of sympathy for the deaths and destruction? How can it destroy terrorist groups, including installations outside its borders, and deter their sponsors?

Israel’s experience offers some lessons: Depend on yourself, be willing to face unfair criticism to engage in self-defense, take counterterrorism very seriously, mobilize your citizens as an active warning system and decide when and where to retaliate.

Defending yourself against terrorism is not easy. Unfortunately, even in an era of “war against terrorism” those truly willing to help in the battle are few and far between.

Since radical Islamists really believe their own propaganda, however, they tend to minimize their allies and maximize their enemies. You don’t want to make 900 million Hindus and additional other Indians, in South Asia and elsewhere, mad at you. There are about as many Hindus and Sikhs as there are Muslims and, as one Indian reader put it, “There is a Hindi saying: One and one makes 11. It is time for India and Israel to become allies. It is a jihad we are both facing.”

The writer is director of Global Research in International Affairs Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal.

www.gloriacenter.org

It is not Palestine or Kashmir, the plan is world Islamic conquest

The below article taken from here is related to the Palestine issue, but is perfectly valid for India as well. Islamic terrorism in India is not about Kashmir at all. But Kashmir is only a strategyfor Islamic conquest.

In The Force of Reason, Italian journalist and novelist Oriana Fallaci recalls how, in 1972, she interviewed the Palestinian terrorist George Habash, who told her that the Palestinian problem was about far more than Israel. The Arab goal, Habash declared, was to wage war “against Europe and America” and to ensure that henceforth “there would be no peace for the West.” The Arabs, he informed her, would “advance step by step. Millimeter by millimeter. Year after year. Decade after decade. Determined, stubborn, patient. This is our strategy. A strategy that we shall expand throughout the whole planet.”

Fallaci thought he was referring simply to terrorism. Only later did she realize that he “also meant the cultural war, the demographic war, the religious war waged by stealing a country from its citizens — In short, the war waged through immigration, fertility, presumed pluriculturalism.”

to read full article click Why We Cannot Rely on Moderate Muslims, by Baron Bodissey, Friday, September 08, 2006

also read: Oriana Fallaci asks: Is Muslim immigration to Europe a conspiracy?

The Old Arab and The Turkey, Nixon on National Will and lessons for India

Kashmir Herald, August 2002

India — A Soft State And National Will
Vinod Kumar

My friend Chanchal Chatterji wrote: “Our inability to deal with hard targets strongly has given us the soft state image and everyone takes us for a ride.”

Well, it is not just an image — it is a matter of fact. It is this understanding that India is a soft state that almost every country takes India for a ride. This soft state status comes not solely from the lack of weapons in Indian armory but also due to India’s commitment to Gandhian and Buddhist concept (it will become clear later) of how to deal with adversaries and this has led to lack of “Will”. Even if India had all the weapons in the world but lacked the “will” to use them — these weapons will do no good. Every time we give in even to a minor terrorist demand — we convey the message that India is a soft state; it has no “will”.

I will give below two examples on this issue of “will” : One is how Nixon saw this issue of national “will” and another is an old Arab story.

I will relate the Arab story first and then quote Nixon.

The Old Arab and The Turkey
Someone told an old Arab if he ate turkey, he will become virile again. So he bought himself a turkey and fed it the best grain and watched it grow big. Every day he said to himself: “One of these days I am going to eat this turkey and be virile again. I am going to be a stud.”

He started eyeing the good looking young women around. One morning he found his turkey has been stolen. He gathered his sons around him and said in a somber voice; “Sons, we are in grave danger. My turkey has been stolen. Go, find my turkey.”

The boys laughed at him and said, “So what is the big deal, Old man? What do you need the turkey for anyway?” The old Arab replied, “Never mind, what I need the turkey for. The important thing is that our turkey has been stolen and it must be found. Go, find my turkey.” The boys walked away and paid no more attention to the old man or look for his turkey.

A few weeks later, old Arab’s camel was stolen. This time the sons went to the old man and said, “Father, our camel has been stolen? What shall we do?” “Forget about the camel. Find my turkey” the old Arab told his sons. The sons did not bother about the turkey but looked for the camel for a few days and soon they forgot about the camel too.

Another few weeks later the old Arab’s horse was stolen. The sons once again went to their father and said, “Father, our horse has been stolen, what shall we do?” “Forget about the horse. Find my turkey.” The old man replied. The sons again did not bother about the turkey but looked for the horse in the neighborhood. Again, after a few days the sons forgot about the horse too.

Finally a few weeks later old Arab’s daughter was raped. The sons were furious, went to father and said, “Father, our sister has been raped. We shall kill the bastard.” The old man looked at his sons and said, “No use showing your temper now. It is all because of the turkey. Once they found out that they can get away with the turkey, everything was lost. They knew they can get away with anything they want.”

Nixon on National Will
In his book “The Real War”, Nixon wrote: “Nations live or die by the way they respond to the particular challenges they face. Those challenges may be internal or external; they may be faced by a nation alone or in concert with other nations; they may come gradually or suddenly. There is no immutable law of nature that says only the unjust will afflicted, or that the just will prevail. While might certainly does not make right, neither does right by itself make might. The time when a nation most craves ease may be the moment when it can least afford to let down its guard. The moment when it most wishes it could address its domestic needs may be the moment when it most urgently has to confront an external threat. The nation that survives is the one that rises to meet that moment: that has the wisdom to recognize the threat and the will to turn it back, and that does so before it is too late.”

“The naïve notion that we can preserve freedom by exuding goodwill is not only silly, but dangerous. The more adherents it wins, the more it tempts the aggressor.”

Nixon went on to write: “There are two aspects to national will. There is will as demonstrated by the nation itself, and there is will as perceived by the nation’s adversaries. In averting the ultimate challenge, perceived will can be as important as actual will. Although an American President would launch a nuclear strike only with the most extreme reluctance, the Kremlin leaders must always assume that he might; and that if truly vital interests of the nation or the West required the use of nuclear weapons, that he would do so. If they are to be effectively deterred from the ultimate provocation, they must perceive that such a provocation carries with it the ultimate risk.

“National will involves far more than readiness to use military power, whether nuclear or conventional. It includes a readiness to allocate the resources necessary to maintain that power. It includes a clear view of where the dangers lie, and of what kinds of responses are necessary to meet those dangers. It includes also a basic, crystalline faith that the United States is on the right side in the struggle, and that what we represent in the world is worth defending.

“For will to be effective, it must necessarily include the readiness to sacrifice if necessary – to deter those goals that are merely desirable in order to advance those that are essential; to pay the cost of defense; to incur risks; to incur the displeasure of powerful constituencies at home and of raucous voices abroad.”

Nixon might have written these with India in view (but we know he didn’t) and he sums up the entire issue one sentence:

“The naïve notion that we can preserve freedom by exuding goodwill is not only silly, but dangerous. The more adherents it wins, the more it tempts the aggressor.”

When I referred to Gandhian and Buddhist concept — I was referring to “naive notion” that Hindus have that if they are nice to others, others will be good to them too. Or if we disarm, others will cause us no harm. If we go on bhookh hartal (hunger strike), the others will at least leave us alone if not give us what we demand. We have practiced these kind of “silly notions” for far too long and that is what led Will Durant to write:

“The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within. The Hindus had allowed their strength to be wasted in internal division and war; they had adopted religions like Buddhism and Jainism, which unnerved them for the tasks of life; they had failed to organize their forces for the protection of their frontiers and their capitals, their wealth and their freedom, from the hordes of Scythians, Huns, Afghans and Turks hovering about India’s boundaries and waiting for national weakness to let them in. For four hundred years (600-1000 A.D.) India invited conquest; and at last it came.”

He went on to write:
“This is the secret of the political history of modern India. Weakened by division, it succumbed to invaders; impoverished by invaders, it lost all power of resistance, and took refuge in supernatural consolations; it argued that both mastery and slavery were superficial delusions, and concluded that freedom of the body or the nation was hardly worth defending in so brief a life. The bitter lesson that may be drawn from this tragedy is that eternal vigilance is the price of civilization. A nation must love peace, but keep its powder dry.”‘

India has not only not learnt the basic lessons in national “will” and it failed to learn the basic facts of life.

Gandhi further pushed India into the abyss that “freedom of the body or the nation was hardly worth defending in so brief a life” except from the British. Unless we can tear ourselves asunder from the legacy of Buddha and Gandhi, any amount of arms or ICBM’s are not to going to help. Gandhi and Buddha might have expounded a philosophy that is good for peace of the mind and of the soul but it does not protect the body and the nation.

HEIL HITLER, HEIL MUHAMMAD: Striking similarities between Islam and Nazism

Heil Islam

Thursday, 05 June 2008
http://islammonitor.org (Ausralian Islamist Monitor)

HEIL HITLER, HEIL MUHAMMAD

by Sujit Das

There are many strange similarities between Muhammad’s teachings, Hitler’s speeches and the two equally lethal doctrines, the Mein Kamph and the Qur’an. The Nazi Party was a ruthless murder machine, so is Islam.

To read in full click here

An Open Letter to Israel by an Indian

An Open Letter to Israel
by Susan Verghese, Published: 06/06/08

A non-Jewish doctor from India shares her thoughts

Dear Israel

I am an Indian doctor who has been living in Dubai for the past few months. I find the Muslims here very tolerant. Even though they follow their   religion   very righteously they are willing to let others live their lives. They love peace and know full well that peace means prosperity.

However, I watch the Aljazeera news channel regularly. I find that they regularly showing documentaries about Israel’s treatment of the Arabs. They show real life stories about children and women and families being affected because of the blockade.

Unfortunately we hardly ever see the Israeli perspective. Israelis are always projected as a group of monsters who have unlawfully taken over the land and are committing atrocities against innocent Arabs. Your side  of the  history  or  the problems you face  are  not  being projected any where .Very  few  of us  have any idea of what the Jews suffered  under successive regimes.

In India and the rest of the world, we have very little awareness of what is really happening in and around your country.

Prophetic Promise

Israel is being compared to the apartheid regime in South Africa. The recent visit of Archbishop Tutu only corroborated that charge, and that which is shown on the news every day is what the public at large will sympathize with.

It is high time your media began making real life TV programs showing the truth about the borders and what the actual problems in Gaza are. News shows about Hamas shooting rockets into Israel territory and the effect of those attacks on the daily lives of people there or the security wall that you never really wanted to build would be good topics. Or how about how you have developed your country within a short span of 60 years into a nation which has to be reckoned with.

Shows should also be made about the suffering of your people during World War II. Young people of many nations have only heard the word “Holocaust” but do not understand the true meaning if it .

Why can’t such stories be made into documentaries?  That will project your side of the picture to the world.

Israel Adds Stability

I feel that your media should do a better job of projecting all the good work going on in Israel to the world. It could be documentaries, TV shows , projects  done with   outsiders, humanitarian assistance, life stories of achievement , any thing that can be projected on news channels , like  CNN , NDTV, BBC  and others, which are watched  by millions the world over.

I believe if there is any stability at present in the Middle East it is because of Israel’s capability to act as a nuclear deterrent. Unfortunately even though the UAE and a lot of so-called “moderate” Muslims recognize this, they will not say it openly as they are worried about hurting the sentiments of their Muslim brothers in Iran, Iraq and Syria.

Quiet diplomacy and spreading knowledge about the truth about Israel & Gaza can achieve a lot more than what can be achieved through war!

I hope and pray there will be peace in the world.

Dr Susan Verghese is a Consultant Microbiologist originally from Chennai, India